Read more about InAlienable.
Support Quixote Center’s InAlienable program!
InAlienable
Daily Dispatch
October 21, 2019
There is an interesting article in Forbes today about the hurdles that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has put in place to limit authorized immigration to the United States. For Republicans it is an interesting space to be in (or would be if they actually believed the free market pablum they espouse). They are defending an administration that is over-spending its budget to put in place layer upon layer of red tape that gets in the way, not just of people coming to the U.S., but of U.S. companies making money from those people. From Stuart Anderson at #37e36d521bea">Forbes:
In a new press release, USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli boasted that the Trump administration has increased red tape and bureaucracy for U.S. companies. It’s the latest example of administration officials lauding efforts to make it more difficult for employers to obtain what economists often consider to be a company’s most valuable resource – talent.
Since 2017, Trump administration policies have focused on restricting the entry of immigrants and foreign nationals, including scientists and engineers. “Denial rates for new H-1B petitions have increased significantly, rising from 6% in FY 2015 to 32% in the first quarter of FY 2019,” according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis.
In addition, expensive and time-consuming Requests for Evidence (RFEs) reached an unprecedented level of 60% in the FY 2019 first quarter. The percentage of completed H-1B cases with a Request for Evidence has doubled between FY 2016 and FY 2019. Many companies have resorted to lawsuits in federal court against USCIS to gain approvals for employees they have identified as valuable.
However, Ken Cuccinelli and USCIS describe the increased bureaucracy facing businesses in positive terms and the fulfillment of a mission. “Consistent with President Trump’s call for enhanced vetting, USCIS plays a key role in safeguarding our nation’s immigration system and making sure that only those who are eligible for a benefit receive it,” according to the October 16, 2019, press release...
Anderson goes on to break down the many ways the USCIS has made it more difficult and expensive, in time and fees, for people to come to the United States to work. And, of course, this means less business being done from people coming to the United States.
Research by Britta Glennon, an assistant professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, found the types of government restrictions applauded by the acting director of USCIS are not good for America. Glennon found H-1B visa restrictions carry the unintended consequence of pushing jobs outside the United States and lead to less innovation in America. “In short, restrictive H-1B policies could not only be exporting more jobs and businesses to countries like Canada, but they also could be making the U.S.’s innovative capacity fall behind,” concluded Glennon.
In a world flipped upside down (again, not really, just our perceptions of parties and their ideologies), the Democrats tried to run to the defense of tech companies and secure a bill (passed in the House) that would eliminate country caps for visas. From CSNBC:
The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants act passed the House in September by a vote of 365-65 and now needs to be passed in the Senate and approved by the president before it goes into effect. It’s been referred to the Senate Judiciary committee but no vote is scheduled.
The legislation, if passed, would substantially change the current immigration system by eliminating a per-country cap that advocates say effectively makes it harder to immigrate from a bigger country versus a smaller country. Many migrants with visas face long backlogs to get permission to permanently immigrate, called a green card.
“We have over 300 folks here on DACA, and we have several people that are on H-1Bs [visas] that might be deep in the green-card backlog,” Cook said in a speech last summer.
The bill aims to equalize wait times across countries by changing the system to first-come first-served. According to the Cato Institute, a substantial portion of immigrants stuck in the backlog are skilled immigrants from China and India.
The bill actually passed the House with significant GOP support, and on the Senate side, its lead co-sponsor is a Republican. Nevertheless, the debate has gotten contentious. What would it mean to remove country caps? Under the current system, Norway and China have the same “quota.” The difference is, there are alot of people from China trying to get here, not so many from Norway (much to Trump’s chagrin). Wait times are significant for Chinese and Indian immigrants (also for folks from Mexico and the Philippines). In a free market for workers, there would be no caps, and workers would come to the U.S. as needed. But there is no free market for anything, much less labor, and Republicans are not trying to create one.
The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrant Act would not increase the total number of green cards issued each year. Removing caps, without increasing the number of green cards, would mean that tech companies could crowd out other industries dependent on immigrant labor. In the southern United States, that is health care. And so, the bill is creating tensions across the GOP based on regional interests and is also dividing would be supporters from the Democratic party because there would be no overall increase in the number of green cards in the Senate version.
So, it may not go anywhere.
This is not a great bill by any stretch, and it is no surprise, or shouldn’t be, that Democrats are fighting for tech companies not immigrants. Where in the Senate is the Dream and Promise Act for DACA recipients? In any event, within a broader package of reform, removing country caps makes a lot of sense. But this is not a justice bill, or a fairness bill. It’s a let’s help Apple make more money bill.